148. The same is true for a president

153. No because a President has to actually

deal with the issues and has power to do it - pundits can criticize all day, but they don't know for sure is they are right about how the President should handle things - their suggestions aren't put to the test - all they have to do is write and say them.

55. So fucking what? You love Glenn and Hate Nancy? what's yer point?

I don't give a flying fuck what Glenn may or may not have done or said about someone/something else at some other time or place. He's not my child. He's not my husband. I don't have to love him. I don't even have to like him. As a matter of fact, I can detest him, which I do, because he's an intentionally deceitful sack of horse shit.

231. That they do.

71. + 1000

It's amazing how anybody can defend this sack of horse-shit Libertarian-posing-as-a-Liberal {which he never claimed he ever was} -racist-KKK defender against a Democratic president on a Democratic Party supporting site.

81. The Greenwald fans are lining up.

I would use the word "apologists," as in one of Greenwald's favorite labels: "Obama apologist."

Here he is jumping on the Fox Noise/RW "Benghazirama," and somehow that doesn't elicit outrage, but defense. The irony is that the defense of someone spewing RW talking points is in the name of purity over party.

88. I call them The GeeGees.

Greenwald has always been RW. Now he can finally be himself. He doesn't have to pretend anymore. I'm sure he'll be penning an impeachment piece soon - pro, of course. And, as usual, his facts will be all wrong but The GeeGees will turn a blind eye. FDL, RT and Common Dreams will celebrate at the prospect of a glorious revolution that won't happen. When they finally give up waiting for it, Glenn will write another piece explaining that the lack of glorious revolution was ALSO Obama's fault.

221. !

136. True and when it comes to other issues

There might be something in it, as a liberal further left than Obama might not agree he should try to compromise on an issue, etc., but this Benghazi stuff? Defending Greenwald on that is as bad as the constant agreement with Obama we are supposed to display (worse because Greenwalk is only a journalist who has no political power and doesn't have to deal with the House). Because in this particular issue, Bush had several embassy attacks which went by in the news without a ton of investigations. Greenwalkd output can easily be looked at to see if he thought there should be hearings on those?

230. Exactly!! I can understand liberals being upset with Obama for not being liberal enough...

162. Notice how GG never has anything to say about the Senate PROTECTING PRIVATE ARMS MARKETS all

over Earth.

Apparently, the killing is just fine as long as it's "freelance" - which - it ISN'T because it comes out of the TAXES that some of us who aren't rich enough to get MONEY BACK FROM THE IRS and pay not taxes at all in some really big corporate-"persons".

Do we ever see anything from GG about any of the above?

How many innocent dead people (from drone or from billions of PRIVATELY SOLD ASSAULT WEAPONS) is being WRONG worth?

82. ^^^This!^^^

I'm not surprised there are some here on DU who would rather defend that racist Ron Paul KKK lovin' "Libertarian" who once defended another person on Twitter who said that "Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing."

Greenwald has been one of the loudest and harshest critics of the Obama administration, and while not actually a liberal or an Obama supporter, he is frequently identified as a blogger who is “disappointed with President Obama” over what he sees as serious violations of civil liberties. The debate over the NDAA (and U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan) has been ongoing and frequently gets lively between Greenwald and his supporters, and pro-Obama bloggers like Imani Gandy, of AngryBlackLady.com and Balloon Juice (Gandy also contributes to theGrio.)

98. Black media (The Grio) calling out Greenwald. And doing it well.

This bit is interesting:

Greenwald has been one of the loudest and harshest critics of the Obama administration, and while not actually a liberal or an Obama supporter, he is frequently identified as a blogger who is “disappointed with President Obama” over what he sees as serious violations of civil liberties.

21. Did you think Greenwald was a "muckraker" when he was criticizing Dubya and Cheney?

Or did he at some point morph from blogger to muckraker?

Like any human Glenn isn't perfect but I get the impression he says and writes what he actually thinks. I spent quite a bit of time on his blog back in the Cheney regency and got into a couple of back and forths with him in the comments section when I thought he was wrong about something, he always struck me as honest even if a bit prolix and bullheaded at times.

33. You do know Glenn was living in Brazil at that time because his partner was not allowed in the US?

For all I know he may well still be living in Brazil, I haven't followed him closely in a while, other interests have become more important to me in the meantime.

Obama was not in favor of gay marriage until not all that long ago either, you might recall his "evolving" position on that subject.

Frankly I see Obama on at least a couple of subjects being a huge hypocrite, personally I like the man and quite a bit of what he does but he does piss me off sometimes and there are times it's obvious that he's not being entirely truthful.

40. No one is completely objective

And everyone has an agenda whether they know it consciously or not.

For me gay marriage has been a no brainer for as long as I can remember, I'm not remotely gay but I grew up around gay men because my mother was an antique dealer who had many gay friends and we partied a lot together at shows, they treated a kind of strange little kid better than most of the straights I knew. I honestly never could see why any reasonable person would object to gays marrying, particularly someone like Obama whose parents' marriage would have been illegal in a number of states when he was born.

Evidently you were upset with Greenwald because he was unable to read Obama's mind.

99. Some of us still do not and will not ever trust this administration on that score.

I don't.

I think Obama, regarding GLBT issues, has done for purely political reasons what religion "informed" homophobes do when they don't want to ruin the family reunion. He's kept the peace, but he's made it very, very clear he's not at all gay-friendly, despite his actions. Actions may speak louder than words, but when they disagree and the actions are favorable to me and mine, distrust is sown. Deeply.

I see in Obama the exact same attitude and behavior I've seen in my own mother.

That does not inspire trust. In fact, it inspires very deep misgivings and very deep mistrust in me, and I know I am not the only one who feels that way.

Let me put it this way: I would much rather Obama were honest in words and actions, and consistent with those, than to see him say one thing, do another, "change", "evolve", and whatever else. I don't know if, regarding gay rights, he is a friend, an enemy, a friend who says he's an enemy, an enemy who says he's a friend, simply a politician who takes the most expedient route, or something in between. I will not ever really trust anything he does for us GLBTs as being the act of a genuine supporter of the cause and principle of equal rights for all sexual orientations. The sum of all his actions on that score, as well as everything he has ever said, lead me to that, and it is unalterable as far as I'm concerned.

There is, in the most literal sense possible, nothing supportive he can do to change my mind. No legislative, judicial, or executive act of support led by him will ever be able to change my mind about that, no matter how grand and generous. That ship sailed in the first five minutes of his inauguration to his first term, because I listened to him when he told me the first time, as Maya Angelou advised... and that day was it.

141. yeah how dare he call an adminstration anti gay while it was

defending doma in court with a brief that could have been written by the frc. Refusing to do anything about DADT. Having an aid who called being gay a lifestyle choice. Not speaking to any reporter for a publication that caters to the gay community for almost 2 years. Oh, and let's not forget that Obama, while Senator, supported a bill forbidding gays from sponsoring spouses for citizenship. I can't imagine why he wondered if that administration was anti gay.

143. IS this administration anti-gay? nt

149. it was certainly a fair question back then

Yes, things turned out well but the fact is until the middle of 2010, it was a very fair question to ask if this administration cared one whit about what gays thought or did. It took a rather famous bout of both vocal and monetary protests from gays to finally get this administration to pay attention to gays and gay issues. Now, if he were saying this stuff now, and not in early 2010 and late 2009, you would have a point in asking your question. But it was a fair question to ask when Greenwald asked it.

158. I never held to the premise of what GG was saying:

That the Administration wouldn't eventually pursue the role that it did.

The problem, apparently, was that the Administration wasn't moving at the pace that GG desired. Dropping everything and going whole hog right off the bat to kill DADT and fight DOMA.

The collapsing economy and getting our troops out of Iraq be damned… Hurry up and do it all by his lonesome, they wanted, in spite of the fact that if any subsequent administration that comes around which would be hostile to gay rights, they could easily undo his actions and could turn back the clock. In spite of the fact that, had he done what they had desired when they wanted him to do when they wanted him to do it, it would undermine any permanent removal of DADT and DOMA.

No, instead Obama had to use stop-gap administrative measures to fix things that Congress put in place, in their narrative. Or else he wasn't serious about these issues. Cut that Gordian Knot with administrative action, or else you hate gay people.

Again, we see where we are now, versus where we were then.

Now, I'm not saying that there was anything wrong with being impatient with fighting injustice, but both he and John Aravosis did quite a bit of misrepresenting the Administration's desired outcome during that debate and much of it was discussed here.

Yes, I had faith that Obama would eventually do right on DADT and DOMA and perhaps that was because of the advantage of 22 years that I spent in uniform and being stationed in DC during much of that time as a witness to how the Government really operates, that I recognized that Greenwald's and Avarosis' narratives were both unfair and dishonest…

However, now that we see that things didn't turn out the way that they said that they were. They turned out much differently.

When Greenwald, just last night, parroted FOX/GOP talking points that Obama needs to be investigated because he "lied" or whatever about Benghazi, that really doesn't put my faith in him that he's being an honest broker today.

170. Note to Mr and Mrs Scorpio: DOMA is still the law of the land. Nothing has 'turned out

differently' because not only is DOMA the law, but LGBT people can still be legally discriminated against in 29 States in employment and housing. Not just in marriage, which is not equal anywhere in the US.
I'm sick of straights who declare that things 'turned out' well when nothing has turned yet at all.
It's turned out much differently? In what way? Obama muttered a few words and stopped hiring openly bigoted surrogates! Wow!
Hubris on the half shell.

214. But you have no compunction about using language that suggests resolution. You say the 'outcome'

was worth it. You say things have 'turned out' differently. You say the right thing has been done about DOMA, just like you always knew it would be. But it still the law. You should just admit that.
The condescending crap about the President's powers, as if you need to teach the stupid gay guy, when you can not even speak honestly for one moment about the history of the issue at hand makes me ill.
You don't even respond to what I write.Because you already know all and are here only to impart,not to learn.

174. I have to say on the Obama administration's performance on gay issues my take is closer to greenwald

and avarois than yours. I base that on several things. One, the administration said repeatedly that they were planning on waiting until 2011 to repeal DADT. Now let's be blunt here, anyone with a political pulse knew we would lose the House in the 2010 elections making that an impossibility. Two, the administration only started really working gay issues when both vocal protests and monetary protests made the administration start to act. Three, even then, DADT only got repealed after it was clear that no budget deal could be made. Now, after the gay revolt and the polls started going well on gay marriage, Obama did stand up. But, frankly what I see was an administration dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing.

Now as to the other point. Greenwald never used the word lied. He did say, accurately, that some of what was said, turned out not to be accurate. Where I disagree with Greenwald is on the need for an investigation since I think the reason for there being some accuracy issues is the cia compound.

160. It was. Would it still be if not for every last person who called him out on it? Yes. Yes.

So your notion that criticism of bigotry was unwarranted is specious. I stopped reading Greenwald when he supported the Iraq war. Still I can understand why he'd go after Obama who voted against the Uniting American Families Act in the Senate and spent the vast majority of his public career so far opposing our basic rights in absurd, magical bullshit language. To claim that a man who says gay people are not 'sanctified' and don't have the 'spiritual element' straights do deserves logic and reason when he is criticized seems to be a flat out double standard. Obama had Donnie McClurkin as surrogate, man. 'We are at war' he said on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson. Told people to take off the gloves and attack us because he said we were 'trying to kill our children'. That is the level of discourse Mr Obama instigated, that was the tone of his first campaign. He had Rick Warren at the Inaugural just days after Warren said gay people are like pedophiles or incest.
You can forget that horrific crap because you are Sanctified by Goddy God and other highly logical and respectful arguments for the superiority of some. How nice for you. Your community not only prevents others from having equal rights but you also hound those who dare suggest your superior role might be made of pretentious superstition and wicked cultural baggage.
Here is Rick Warren, Obama said he was America's Minister and lauded him days after this crap. Own this along with your judgements:
" RICK WARREN: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

STEVEN WALDMAN: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

172. That does not even make sense. When a person appoints a surrogate that is what it is.

He hired McClurkin as surrogate. Do you know what that word means? I assume you do but you are being obtuse. And Warren, he selected and named for honors demanded that he was America's Minister. After Warren had said all of that hate speech.
Good lord. DOMA is still the law. 29 States your people can discriminate against mine legally openly and they do so. In housing. In employment. Yet you are typing that things 'turned out' well. Just disgusting.
I don't like Greenwald, but I care far less for bigots who hate my people, and for those who hire them, defend them and allow hate laws to continue.
Outcomes. Wow.

181. Let's consider that Obama's interaction with both of those ministers…

Could have served as a way to taint them against their own positions of bigotry and bigoted bases.

Now, I'm will concede that Obama may have viewed what influence those two would have in faith circles and popular media as less relevant as their positions on gay rights. Seeing how he's just as willing as every other politician in this country to triangulate with religious types, obviously that's problematic as Obama is willing to dally in that arena.

Warren's a popular author and McClurkin a popular singer outside of their positions on gay rights. Perhaps that was his way in to an advantage against what they stand for.

But much in the way that only anti-Commie Nixon could go to China, we now have a President Obama who can tell these two that they're absolutely wrong on their positions about Gay Rights…

Anti-gay Warren and McClurkin now have worked with a President who supports gay rights… Where is THEIR credibility now?

213. So hate speech against good people you excuse with a thousand words, criticism of a politician who

attacked good people, you can not abide and you judge instantly, the very day it happens. Shouldn't you be waiting to see the 'outcome'? To be fair? Of course not, you have one standard for your own, and one for LGBT people, we should just take it you think. Sorry to displease the Sanctified.
When will Obama tell Warren and McClurkin this? He won't and YOU know it.
Mel Brooks said this about comedy and tragedy: 'Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall down an open sewer and die'.
The hate against others is just politics, but criticism of politicians is tragedy. You don't really mind what was and is done to us, that's the point. You were fine to hear the Warren crap, I know you did not even go read that link. Your community can fling hate but refuses to own the actions it has made.

225. to troll.

180. I agree with you. Greenwald has never given me any reason to distrust him, not so for this Admin.

Although i've voted for him twice I find Obama and his Administration a deep and bitter disappointment. At a time when we need a Democrat the likes of FDR more than ever what we get is something much much less; hardly a Democrat at all to my eyes.

28. He actively is trying to burn down America's two parties and have a 3rd party

from wiki-
"I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."
oops, another alt-media writer's true colors exposed

155. I agree with Glenn that a two party system is not the healthiest form of democracy.

216. Probably not

Here in South Korea there are four or five parties. The problem is come election time because their are two liberal parties they end up losing because they can't decide who will run. We are now in the 6th of 10 years of a conservative administration (they serve one five year term, so the second one who just got elected is a different person). Meanwhile we have to live with the regressive policies for a long while.

270. Glenn

129. What was the US doing in Bengazi to begin with? Libya was none of our business. We were

told there would be no 'boots on the ground' in Libya. However, many of us KNEW we were there all along and Bengazi proved it. I don't care what the morons on the Right have to say about anything, they have ZERO moral authority to do so. But WE, DEMOCRATS who claimed to be opposed to all these lies told about our illegal wars DO have that authority, as does Glenn Greenwald who took the same position on Bush when it came to our foreign policy.

That, of course, depends on whether we really believed that our illegal invasions, or proxy wars fought for us by our allies in Qatar, Bahrain etc, were actually wrong, or whether we were just opposed to them because it was the 'other party' doing it.

I have noticed a strange shift in thinking regarding our foreign adventures mostly in oil producing and/or strategic nations since Bush left office. That is very troubling, it suggests we may never have been sincere at all.

Greenwald otoh, has remained consistent in his criticisms of our Neocon foreign policies so he has the credibility lacking in anyone who once SUPPORTED these adventures on the RIGHT who now criticize them, as well as those on the LEFT who are now okay with them.

15. Cooke was one serious prick.

23. I almost turned it off.

I was prepared to want to smack Greenwald. But even my husband was horrified at Cooke and the way he talked to Joy. I said "even" because he didn't know who she was. But it only took a few minutes for him to see she's well informed. Then he asked about her so I gave him some background.

Ha!! She held her own. She didn't let Cooke get away with it. And he really did look like a jerk the whole time.

13. ha ha I was wondering how that would go over

I didn't expect it or see it coming, but it was an excellent point: if a president is making untrue statements just weeks before an election, it damn well better be investigated (eom). You would want the same if it were Bush.

Maher didn't like his second point, either: the US is a violent nation exporting violence around the world for 60 years. It's not just "those people" that are violent.

70. +1

89. Did you even watch? All y'all really missed the point, which was very simple!

He repeated adamantly three time because everyone was being dense (cough cough), that, when a president makes statements that aren't true (OH BY THE WAY, he didn't assign guilt!!!!) it deserved an investigation (EOM). He never said he was a proponent of multiple investigations!!! LOL Y'all missed it. Too bad.

Now, all y'all are taking that to mean he's on an Obama which hunt over Benghazi. He may in fact not like Obama. Unfortunately, people you don't like make valid points. Ron Paul has a few good ideas. Ralph Nader has good ideas. Y'all here will rail against anything that comes out of their mouths until Rachel validates it. Then you'll ignore the fact that Paul or Nader have been saying it for a long time.

I'm commenting on DU hero-worshiping: Obamaites and Maddowites. You're all very similar to Bushies and need to examine yourselves.

90. If he

"He repeated adamantly three time because everyone was being dense (cough cough), that, when a president makes statements that aren't true (OH BY THE WAY, he didn't assign guilt!!!!) it deserved an investigation (EOM)."

...said that in a discussion about Benghazi, he's full of shit. That's RW drivel. Benghazi is fucking joke.

92. All you have are Ignorant insults. Which is nothing.

107. Far from accurate. That's all you want to believe I have to say.

Actually, I also said...

I didn't expect it or see it coming, but it was an excellent point: if a president is making untrue statements just weeks before an election, it damn well better be investigated (eom). You would want the same if it were Bush.

(If it were Bush, of course you'd want an investigation.)

and

He repeated adamantly three time because everyone was being dense (cough cough), that, when a president makes statements that aren't true (OH BY THE WAY, he didn't assign guilt!!!!) it deserved an investigation (EOM). He never said he was a proponent of multiple investigations!!!

Now, all y'all are taking that to mean he's on an Obama which hunt over Benghazi. He may in fact not like Obama. Unfortunately, people you don't like make valid points.

and

Formerly "Objective" was used to describe MSNBC, Rachel, and Ed.

Not only did I watch Ed, I listen to his radio program daily. There was a point when people would call in just to tell Ed that his railing against Obama was going to cost him the election. For a while, Ed held his ground. Then suddenly, something shifted in MSNBCland, objectivity was lost, and nary a critical word was uttered about Obama. MSNBC became the Obama Re-election Channel. Ed's protesting on his radio show stopped, too. Ergo, objectivity lost!

108. Yeah, you were hurling insults.

110. LOL...deservedly. Have you read some of the comments here?

Anyway, before I posted, a lot of folks were negating his comments as if they actually knew what he said. I was filling in the blanks for those of you who don't or didn't watch Bill Maher. There are plenty of you.

243. the reason we distrust Paul

is because we do not want him to get power to act the really BAD ideas , because we know the GOP will pour money behind them. You cannot act like he is just some lone voice in the wilderness when you know he will let the GOP USE Him as a trojan horse.

As far as nader, he lost cred the minute he failed to return the right wing's money, despite the fact they bragged about funding him.

39. 1+++

73. No, he's hiding something that doesn't exist in any reality but that of RW fucksticks.

You can't prove a negative.

He's just the 'hip' version of Faux Noose, the end result of what he and they do is exactly the same. Pays so well, too, since the plutocrats foot the bill for the propaganda from all sides. I see more about what Obama is about from his enemies, than the news will ever allow from him.

25. This reaction was soooo predictable...thank you MSNBC

There was a time when Rachel and Ed were objective toward Obama. Then the run up to the election came and MSNBC morphed into Opposite-Fox, 24/7 Obama cheerleading. And now it's wrong to question the POTUS.

54. Glad you're loving it

91. Thank you for proving my point!

Formerly "Objective" was used to describe MSNBC, Rachel, and Ed.

Not only did I watch Ed, I listen to his radio program daily. There was a point when people would call in just to tell Ed that his railing against Obama was going to cost him the election. For a while, Ed held his ground. Then suddenly, something shifted in MSNBCland, objectivity was lost, and nary a critical word was uttered about Obama. MSNBC became the Obama Re-election Channel. Ed's protesting on his radio show stopped, too. Ergo, objectivity lost!

59. Oh, fuck, this is ruining this thread with the RW talking points.

187. I wouldn't go so far as to say they hate him.

I've seen Rachel and Ed give him props where it was due. But I'm with you about how they covered the 1st debate; Ed just went way over the top, and Rachel pretty much chalked it down as a loss for Obama even though Romney got caught in more lies.

The people who I can't really stand though (who are on the Left) are Cornel West and Cenk Ugyur. Those are the type of people whom every time I hear from them, it is more often than not, something against Obama. They talk about the bad news more than they do about the positives, even if the bad news is old news. They'll say something like "he isn't progressive enough" or "he isn't doing enough for the Black community" or "he is going to cut entitlements" blah blah blah... First of all, he is everyone's president, not just the Black president. Secondly, he has had over 4 years and an opposition party that is more than happy to help him eliminate the Big 3. Third, there is very little a president can do on his own without the help of Congress. And even all the stuff he has accomplished thus far (such as lowering UE and health care reform) is in spite of the GOP, yet that doesn't get discussed as much. This is something that I wish more progressives would understand instead of acting like we elected a king. And the point where Cenk really lost me was when he was actually talking about voting for Gary Johnson in the 2012 election because he is a "true progressive". Never mind that Johnson is basically a Ron Paul clone when it comes to fiscal policy and drugs. The common misconception about libertarians is that they want to legalize all drugs, but all they really want to do is leave it up to the states and quit enforcing federal laws.

68. "Obama's political courage should not be minimized"

Numerous commentators are objecting to the idea that Barack Obama deserves credit for his release of the OLC torture memos yesterday in light of his accompanying pledge that CIA officials relying in good faith on those memos won't be prosecuted. Chris Floyd is one who articulates that objection quite well and, as is always true for Chris, his criticisms are well worth reading. Many others -- including Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, John Dean and Bruce Fein -- yesterday lambasted Obama for his anti-prosecution stance. Since I gave substantial credit to Obama yesterday for the release of the memos and believe even more so today that he deserves it (despite finding the anti-prosecution case as corrupted and morally bankrupt as ever), I want to return to the issue of Obama's actions.

(...)

Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true. The disgusting comments of former CIA Director Mike Hayden on MSNBC yesterday -- where he made clear that he simply does not believe in the right of citizens to know what their government does and that government crimes should be kept hidden-- is clearly what Obama was hearing from many powerful circles. That twisted anti-democratic mentality is the one that predominates in our political class.

74. Who has moral courage? Glenn Greenwald said Obama did

Perhaps more depressing than the toxic demagoguery driving this controversy is the dearth of national politicians with the moral courage to oppose it.

President Obama deserves some credit for voluntarily entering the debate by emphatically affirming the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion. Though he muddled his own message the next day by stressing that he was neutral on whether project developers should voluntarily move from the site -- which is, after all, the crux of the dispute -- at least he defended, without qualification or caveat, the vital constitutional values at stake.

By contrast, Obama's fellow Democrats, in the face of this Republican assault, have largely been a model of cowardice, or worse. Indeed, one reason it was necessary for Obama to intervene is because the New York City Congressional delegation, with the noble exception of Manhattan Democrat Jerry Nadler, had been conspicuously and inexcusably silent. Two weeks ago, mayoral hopeful and Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner finally managed to issue a statement, but it was so vapid and incoherent that few people even knew what it meant.

78. It still won't make him popular, or even respected.

80. "Obama's choice of Sotomayor deserves praise"

Reports indicate that President Obama has selected Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. The announcement will be made formally this morning at 10:15 a.m. EST. This nomination should be judged principally on two grounds: (1) her judicial opinions (which Scotusblog’s Tom Goldstein comprehensively reviews here) and (2) her answers at her confirmation hearing. But based on everything that is known now, this seems to be a superb pick for Obama.

It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous smear campaign led by The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen and his secret cast of cowardly Eminent Liberal Legal Scholars of the Respectable Intellectual Center. People like that, engaging in tactics of that sort, have exerted far too much influence on our political culture for far too long, and Obama’s selection of one of their most recent targets both reflects and advances the erosion of their odious influence. And Obama’s choice is also a repudiation of the Jeffrey-Rosen/Ben-Wittes/Stuart-Taylor grievance on behalf of white males that, as Dahlia Lithwick put it, “a diverse bench must inevitably be a second-rate bench.”

Obama has also ignored the deeply dishonest right-wing attacks on Sotomayor, beginning with the inane objection to her perfectly benign and accurate comments on videotape that appellate judges, as distinct from district court judges, “make policy.” Lawyer Anonymous Liberal thoroughly eviscerated that line of attack as the shallow and deceitful argument it is. A similar avenue of certain attack — that Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech that a female Latina judge has experiences that can inform her view of cases — is equally frivolous. There are a whole range of discretionary judgments which judges are required to make; does anyone actually doubt that familiarity with a wide range of cultural experiences is an asset?

103. GG sat up there and asserted that the GOP/FOX witch hunt "investigation" was valid

Because the President was lying. That plays directly into the narrative that the Right has been saying that there was a cover-up. Why ELSE would there need to be an investigation at this late stage after it's been proven that the State Department and the White House had been forthcoming?

He had an opportunity to call FOX/GOP on their present BS and he neglected to do that instead.

Now, I do give him credit that he didn't jump on the latest FOX/GOP bandwagon, that it's ALL Hillary's fault.

But he was quite clear through his speculation that the President LIED (or was mistaken), in which he transferred the blood of those dead Americans onto Obama's hands rather than those of the terrorists who killed them.

104. What a perfect opportunity

You'll know them by their cheerleading, their "he can do no wrong" attitude, their idol worshiping, the whole cult-of-personality thing they tend to get wrapped up in.

No matter what he says, they'll stand behind him - even if he's spewing RW talking points. It's a kind of Greenwald-over-principles attitude. They think he's charming and has charisma; they're easily swayed by 'pretty words'.

The Greenwaldabots - not only is it a potentially a great band name, it's a great descriptor for those who consistently accuse the "Obamabots" of all of the above, while actually being the embodiment of all they claim to abhor.

What goes around comes around. And no one comes-and-goes quite like Greenwald and his adoring fans.

105. Its a discussion show.

I don't understand why you would want to listen to 4 people who parrot your own beliefs. I thought he was wrong about Benghazi but he put Maher in his place when it came to Islam and the Middle East Vs Israel and the United States. Maher is a bigot.

124. I'd comment on Greenwald's libertarianism and offensive

right-wing meme support, but he might call me a name and link to my post in one of his writings. So, I'll refrain from commenting, so as to avoid being called out by that bloviating ever-changing libertarian.

The vast majority of the betrayals on this list had nothing to do with Republican obstructionism:

Corporate and bank-cozy appointments, over and over again, including major appointments like:

A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner.

Bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks (with personal pressure from Obama to attorneys general to approve them),
Refusal by Obama's DOJ to prosecute even huge, egregious examples of bank fraud (i.e, HSBC)
signing NDAA to allow indefinite detention,
"Kill lists" and claiming of the right to assassinate even American citizens without trial
Expansion of wars into several new countries
A renewed public advocacy for the concept of preemptive war
Drone campaigns in multiple countries with whom we are not at war
Proliferation of military drones in our skies
Federal targeting of Occupy for surveillance and militarized response to peaceful protesters
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for warrantless surveillance
Fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for strip searches for any arrestee
Supporting and signing Internet-censoring and privacy-violating measures like ACTA
Support for corporate groping and naked scanning of Americans seeking to travel
A new, massive spy center for warrantless access to Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet use
Support of legislation to legalize massive surveillance of Americans
Militarized police departments, through federal grants
Marijuana users and medical marijuana clinics under assault,
Skyrocketing of the budget for prisons.
Failing to veto a bipartisan vote in Congress to gut more financial regulations.
Passionate speeches and press conferences promoting austerity for Americans
Bush tax cuts extended for billionaires, them much of it made permanent
Support for the payroll tax holiday, tying SS to the general fund
Support for the vicious chained CPI cut in Social Security and benefits for the disabled
Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid offered up as bargaining chips in budget negotiations, with No mention of cutting corporate welfare or the military budget
Advocacy of multiple new free trade agreements, including The Trans-Pacific, otherwise known as "NAFTA on steroids."
Support of drilling, pipelines, and selling off portions of the Gulf of Mexico
Corporate education policy including high stakes corporate testing and closures of public schools
Entrenchment of exorbitant for-profit health insurance companies into healthcare, through mandate
Legal assault on union rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers
New policies of targeting children and first responders in drone campaigns,
New policies of awarding medals for remote drone attacks,
Appointment of private prison executive to head the US Marshal's office
Massive escalation of federal contracts for private prisons under US Marshall's office

198. If you "loathe" Obama

then WTF are you doing on a Democratic website with over 10K posts? Even after everything that Obama has done for the country, you're still comparing him to Bush ll? That is straight bullshit. What about health care reform? Lowering unemployment? Lowering the deficit? Drawing down both of Bush ll's wars, being the 1st president to endorse gay marriage, signing the Fair Pay Act, and doing the auto bailout? Can you honestly say with a straight face that any Republican president would ever do any of that stuff? And all of this is in spite of constant GOP obstruction. I assume none of those accomplishments matter to you, though.

The real people who should be blamed for our country's problems is the GOP. They not only support Citizens United (like Greenwald does BTW), but they also have refused any more tax hikes on people who can afford to pay extra, they've blocked federal gun laws, they've wanted to intrude into women and gay people's private lives, and they've been trying to make it more difficult for poor people and minorities to vote state-by-state. Do you see Obama or the Democratic party doing this shit? Hell no.

To make this false equivalence between Obama and Bush ll or anyone else in today's Republican party just shows ignorance on your part about everything that has happened in Washington since January 2009 and how government works.

139. i watched it, it was worth listening to

my problem with what Greenwald said is that he said "it needs to be investigated." The problem with that is that it has been investigated. Four State Department officials were fired.

But the thing that you, I and Greenwald have in common is that what we're thinking for ourselves, we're not blindly defending anyone like we're PR flacks, or blindly attacking people like we're opposition research operatives. We're just people with brains which we are choosing to use.

144. So

"i watched it, it was worth listening to my problem with what Greenwald said is that he said "it needs to be investigated." The problem with that is that it has been investigated. Four State Department officials were fired.

...you agreed with the basic point of the OP, but then decided to launch a series of defense of Greenwald, and now you're hypocritically, ironically and self-rigtheously insulting others:

"But the thing that you I and Greenwald have in common is that what we're thinking for ourselves, we're not blindly defending anyone like we're PR flacks, or blindly attacking people like we're opposition research operatives. We're just people with brains which we are choosing to use."

177. And what he said does not make sense and indicates a lack of thinking. nt

193. It's not like Greenwald has been living in a cave since the GOP takeover

He knows full well what the Republicans and done and their motivation for doing it… These "investigations" that they've conducted have never been about getting to bottom of real facts.

They've always been about muddying up the political framework with their hare-brained rhetoric and pinning it on Obama as way to undermine his authority and policies.

Where was Greenwald's call to have Bush investigated over his responses to the many more attacks on our diplomatic facilities under HIS watch?

I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt of not thinking. To me, a call to justify a GOP witch hunt "investigation" is a sure sign of his continued hostility towards the President, even is he has to whore himself out to FOX/GOP talking points in order to do that very thing.

140. Despite claims by some, I see very little cult of personality for Obama.

Some have leveled that accusation at me, for instance, and I am on record, very publicly, with disagreeing with the President on at least three or four occasions, most recently the proposed Social Security cuts.

There definitely is, however an anti-cult of personality for Obama. There are some here and in the Republican party, who criticize him all the time even when there is no reason to do so.

147. I disagree.

There are people here who luvs them their President--no matter what. Even when he proposes Social Security cuts, they defend him on the basis of multi-dimensional chess.

Plenty of DUers criticize him, myself included, because they want him to do better. We understand that on many occasions his hands are tied, but there are times when he ties them himself. That makes me crazy.

Of course, the Republicans loathe the President unconditionally, and would argue that the sky was orange if he said it was blue. That's their gig; it is certainly not mine, nor have I seen it here.

226. That is exactly my point. You can't do it and thus shouldn't claim it is so. nt

235. Oh dear.

You have some stuff to learn. For starters, proving a negative is considered an unfair burden, since it is so very hard, if not impossible, to do. That is why, in our court system, defendants are judged Guilty (sufficient proof) or Not Guilty (insufficient proof) but NOT Innocent.

It is the easiest thing in the world for someone to say "You can't PROVE X, therefore Y MUST be true". It is also a fallacy and usually a diversionary tactic, used to buttress a weak position.

Grow up (I say that because you seem young) and learn something. You are the only one dealing in absolutes here, and that is almost always a losing argument (see what I did there? "almost always" takes me away from a categorical statement).

182. Bullshit. Your post here is an example of the problem.

We desperately need voices like Glenn Greenwald's to hold our corporate Democrats accountable. The 99 percent are under sustained assault by a Democratic administration working for the corporate one percent in virtually every major policy area, and Greenwald's voice is one of the few that has attempted to cut through the incessant propaganda that allows the assaults...on safety nets, in tax policy, in education, in energy, on war, on the police state and civil liberties....to continue.

You are the one trying to smear and discredit and negate one of the very few journalists who tells the truth about what corporate Democrats are doing, and you are doing it based on a single column. Disagree with this column and make your point about Benghazi. But don't pull this smearing crap along with the serial corporate defenders and try to make this about Greenwald rather than the issue at hand.

192. "He's right on other things, to be sure…"

Of course he is. It is the OP who is trying to turn this issue into a blanket smear and dismissal of Greenwald, rather than a discussion of Benghazi and what Greenwald actually said. It's strange that you would leap into this subthread specifically to naysay a DUer who rejected this vague, blanket smear.

206. Alrighty, let's see what we have here:

Here's an article that coincides with my own allegation:

Many of you know about Glenn Greenwald, a contributor at extreme libertarian CATO Institute, (he also publishes and sells at least one White Paper on CATO's website and bookstore), and a pretend-liberal on Salon.com, who has a vendetta he pursues ruthlessly against the Obama Administration. If you listen to Greenwald, he actually sounds a lot more like a Tea Partier than any average American.

Another article, this time exposing the way that Greenwald continues to troll the President on Gay Rights issues:

One thing you learn from following Glenn Greenwald on Twitter is a certain kind of specialized trolling. Glenn is very good at phrasing something he believes in a way that will piss off his erstwhile allies, people who voted for Obama but may be sympathetic to the more radical positions Glenn holds. This tweet is a good example. Can I argue with the underlying point Glenn’s making here? Not really–Obama’s change on gay marriage was a political calculation, as Portman’s was. It showed Obama’s cautious political nature and general unwillingness to grasp progressive causes unless he sees that cause moving towards the center.

Then of course, there is the way that he's condemning the President's conduct of wars, that he himself had supported when those wars were conducted by Bush:

Check out this interview:

And compare THAT to this particular article:

In an otherwise entertaining attack on Thomas Friedman’s latest piece of drivel about Syria, moral crusader Glenn Greenwald goes after the NYTs columnist for covering up the fact that he supported the war in Iraq – a war he supported too and barely ever talks about:

The reality is that almost everything Tom Friedman says on Iraq is designed to make people forget his actual, candidly expressed views about why he thought the war was just — probably the most viscerally repellent comments anyone with a large mainstream platform has spouted in the last decade.
I don’t mind Greenwald pointing this out, but when was the last time you heard Greenwald talk about his faith in the Bush Administration’s wisdom after 9/11? Yep, that’s right. Virtually never.

By the way, he did say something nice about Obama once, on Gay Issues, believe it or not:

"That’s equally true of positive acts: they don’t become less commendable because they were the by-product of political pressure or self-preservation; when a politician takes the right course of action, as Obama did today, credit is merited, regardless of motive.

It should go without saying that none of this mitigates the many horrendous things Obama has done in other areas, nor does it mean he deserves re-election. But just as it’s intellectually corrupted to refuse to criticize him when he deserves it, the same is true of refusing to credit him when he deserves it. Today, he deserves credit. LGBT equality is one area — and it’s an important area for millions of Americans — where he has conducted himself commendably and deserves praise. That was true before today, but even more so now."

219. Thank you very much for posting the links to all those Greenwald pieces,

because people really do need to read them. I hope and expect that these past few days of persistent attempts by you and others to smear Greenwald will invite people who've not yet read the articles to actually do so. There is some excellent information here, and I thank you for putting so much of it in one place.
________________________

That being said, let's review what you wrote here:

First, what's the difference between a smear and an argument? One of the most reliable and telling aspects of the corporate smear and propaganda machine is its heavy dependence on emotional bids and empty namecalling in lieu of actual argument. Look at the language of your first paragraphs, including what you chose to cut and paste as "support" for your argument: There is almost no real content here, but lots of emotional smear words and phrases like "trolling," "extreme libertarian," "pretend liberal," "like a Tea Partier," and "radical positions." It is quite telling that you begin with lots of smear language, rather than actual arguments.

So what is the content you *do* consider important enough to offer as substance for the body of your post, and does it support these extreme words? What are your best examples? Well, you are apparently offended that Greenwald points out Obama's political gamesmanship on LGBT issues...a point that even the writer you cite admits is fair game and cannot really be argued. Hmm.

But even more ludicrous and offensive is your second attempt at a smoking gun: You suggest, apparently with a completely straight face, that we should be offended when Greenwald criticizes Tom Friedman for supporting more warmongering in Syria. And your reasoning? You claim that both supported the Iraq War, but that is demonstrably false. Greenwald himself flatly denies it, and you can provide no statement by him to support your accusation. But here's the point, smears and misrepresentations aside: Even if *any* criticizer of Friedman had been duped about Iraq, like some others who have since come to reason, it still would not make your point, because Friedman *continues* to rationalize warmongering and therefore his history of doing so remains particularly relevant here. You actually expect people to swallow THIS: that "consistency" should prevent anyone who previously failed to oppose a bad war but now holds the morally correct position, from criticizing someone else who also failed to oppose bad war and CONTINUES TO DO SO.

Wow. Just wow. A baseless accusation, used to prop up even *worse* moral logic.

The audacity and nastiness of the smears ("like a Tea Partier, "trolling," "extreme libertarian," "pretend liberal," "radical positions") are stunning given that these two absurd complaints are the best you can offer here....but I guess that's how smear propaganda works. It's certainly how the two-party game works. We are admonished to circle our Blue wagons and be OUTRAGED at criticism...not because Obama is *not* pursuing the many, many malignant corporate policies catalogued in the Greenwald articles, but because...

Because why, again? Because he's a Democrat?

There's our problem. We have a purportedly Democratic administration carrying out an extreme corporatist agenda in virtually every single major policy area important to the one percent. And we have a corporate propaganda machine that specializes in hurling smears at the messenger or convoluted rationalizations as to why the Other side, but not the Team you align with, should be held accountable for the very same direction of policy.

But, true to form, the policies themselves are never refuted....because they can't be.

Keep posting Greenwald pieces that document a policy agenda you cannot refute. Keep trying to argue that criticizing the *actual* policies pursued by this administration equals "a vendetta." You show through your examples here just how thin, and how based in smears and bids for partisan loyalty, the arguments really are.

244. Wow. I wish I could rec your analysis.

And the fact that everything in the USA is so polarized, that we have created a "binary" situation for politics, which is a most dangerous thing to do, causes many people concern.

The whole nature of the Benghazai investigations is not to improve a bad situation but to critique Lady Clinton, who will possibly run for the Highest Office in this nation in 2016.

So needed reforms of the precarious situation that our diplomats find themselves in is now to-- what? Have to be swept under the rug and ignored, so that the Republicans don't make more noise and political hay over the lives that were lost.

245. But what's the diff between GG calling Obama...

An "imperialist," an "authoritarian," an "extremist," "horrendous," and who doubted that he even should be reelected and the freaking Teabaggerati calling him those things?

Does that mean that his concurrence validates the Teabaggerati smears?

What's the difference between Greenwald calling for Obama to be investigated over Benghazi and the GOP wanting to investigate him (and Hillary, both for political reasons alone) with another one of their patented witch hunts?

Are YOU on board with any of these things as well merely because Greenwald takes those positions?

257. Just like you to jump on a wingnut conspiracy

194. That is disingenuous.

His point was very clear. He said that, since the event occurred in the weeks leading up to the election, the Romney campaign had seized on it as a political cudgel, and that some of the Obama Administration's public statements had been inaccurate, and at least partly politically motivated as well. I think that much is pretty clearly true.

He said that any time the government is making statements that are counter to reality, it ought to be investigated. He didn't say he supported the circus that the GOP has predictably turned it into, or that it was some Watergate-esque coverup. He said an investigation had been warranted-- which it was.

All this was said in the context of Bill Maher insisting that there had never been a question to answer. I agreed with Greenwald that he was wrong in that. I feel it's ludicrously well-settled at this point, but there it is.

199. Who knows? Maybe he thinks that Issa would conduct an honest investigation of Benghazi

Well, maybe he also thinks that the Easter Bunny shits Easter eggs too. I don't know.

Talking about "making statements that are counter to reality," that's the ONLY thing that the FOX/GOP machine has been pulling since DAY ONE. Doesn't he understand that?

Aren't we going to discuss the patently dishonest way that the Republicans have conducted and perpetuated this so-called investigation? Where was Greenwald's stipulation that the Republicans should get their shit together? I didn't hear it.

All that Greenwald stated was that President might have "lied" or was mistaken about what he said over Benghazi and that another GOP investigation was needed to figure out what went on.

Something like that is fucking ridiculous in this political environment.

BUT, if his point was to further his constant campaign against the President, even if that meant that he had to justify ANOTHER GOP witch hunt, then I heard him with crystalline clarity.

200. Except

"People like Greenwald make it clear that many Democrats only ever paid to the ideals they claimed to believe in when Bush was the president. They're simply party supporters, no different from hypocritical conservatives who go on about Benghazi, as if they really cared. "

...this isn't about "lip service" or "ideals," it's about Greenwald being a fucking RW tool.

208. You do realize that those links make *my* point, and not yours, right?

Rand Paul is a crass, professional politician who unashamedly took up the cause of 'defending civil liberties' when the attacks on said liberties were coming from the other party. The Democrats, in like fashion, suddenly became tone deaf to the issue.

Greenwald's position was constant throughout. If he agreed with one group and then the other, it's a commentary on empty, party-first politicians and their followers, who so casually shed their skins and trade them with their "opponents".

215. Oh please,

"Greenwald's position was constant throughout. If he agreed with one group and then the other, it's a commentary on empty, party-first politicians and their followers, who so casually shed their skins and trade them with their 'opponents'."

...he's a fucking RW tool. Greenwald simply moved to Rand Paul because he no longer has Ron Paul to hype.

The steadfast ignoring of Ron Paul — and the truly bizarre un-personhood of Gary Johnson — has ensured that, yet again, those views will be excluded and the blurring of partisan lines among ordinary citizens on crucial issues will be papered over. That’s precisely the opposite effect that a healthy democratic election would produce.

217. At least Obama did actually address gay rights.

He was only the 1st president to do so, and now people are saying that he didn't do it early enough or quick enough blah blah blah... Well...at least he DID. Just by him endorsing it alone, it was enough to shift public opinion and to start up a conversation about it. Give the man credit.

256. But you refuse to give credit to the activists who spent years pressuring him while he claimed God

would not 'Sanctify' gay people, that we did not have the 'spiritual element' straights have, his surrogates who called for war on us, his employment and praise of Rick Warren even as Warren libeled us with the very worst libels his mind could come up with.
Had activists remained silent, Obama would still be opposing our rights. I think it is time for those who really forced his hand to speak about that. Note, he finally said 'I don't hate them' a couple of days before he had a showbiz fundraiser, where many were going to tell him to stick it.
Obama has yet to apologize for his actions against us, even as he says he see they were wrong. Hmmmmm. People in this very thread are still excuse those hate preachers and verbal attacks, still. It is what it is. They did what they did. It will not be forgotten and until they make amends and make actual change and equality, it will not be forgiven for some muttered words spoken to get donations.

268. Sometimes I agree with Glenn Greenwald and sometimes I disagree.

What's the big deal? This is America, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, which they are free to state. I don't believe Greenwald has ever claimed to be a Democrat, and even if he did, he's allowed to disagree with the president if he feels like it.

If we were all the same, the world would be a pretty boring place, don't you think?